KILLER KING

Marc Cooper’s hyperbolic praise of the L.A. Times’ King/Drew
series [Dissonance,
“The Times’ Skewed Reporting on King/Drew,” December 10–16]
is transparent despite the piece’s second-half denunciation of that paper’s
patently skewed reporting on the White House. Cooper’s ode to objectivity is
suspect: He embraces the demeaning “Killer King” and effusively applauds
the Times’ one-sidedness as “not biased or unfair.” That’s
nonsense.

When the Marc Coopers are prepared to include Cedars-Sinai, St.
Joseph’s, Good Samaritan, etc., in the despised “identity politics”
ranks, conversations about King/Drew (and poor people of color in general) should
take on new meaning. Then dissenters from the tyranny of the ruling majority
that includes the L.A. Times will be better able to participate in decisions
affecting their lives.

—Larry Aubry

Los Angeles

Larry Aubry is a staff writer at the Los Angeles Sentinel
and is the father of L.A. Weekly staff writer Erin Aubry Kaplan, who
has reported on the King/Drew fiasco.

BOYS AND GIRLS

In the second paragraph of Jeffrey Anderson’s article “Blessed
by the Devil” [December 10–16], it states that the Diocese of Orange’s
settlement in the Catholic Church sex scandal “[e]clipses the $85 million
Boston settlement and every other diocese in the country, where for decades
priests have buggered little boys, while vicars, bishops and cardinals let them.”
My problem is with using the term “boys” instead of “children.”
I believe there have been some female victims as well. Just putting boys is
fuel for all the homophobes out there.

—Chad Wood

Los Angeles

DON’T CALL IT A COMEBACK

Thank you, Seven McDonald, for your brilliant response [Letters
to the Editor, “Golden Graham,” December 3–9] to another religious
fanatic who is irate because he didn’t like what he saw or read [24/7, “The
Billy Pulpit,” November 26–December 2]. I was having a really bad week,
and for the first time I laughed out loud after reading your response. You were
to the point, didn’t get sucked into reciting passages of some book somebody
wrote, and the quote you chose to use at the end of your response was a brilliant
choice.

—Joshua Patrick Wells

West Hollywood

ONWARD

I feel it is important to clarify and make accurate some points
appearing in Judith Lewis’ article “The
Fat Lady Still Isn’t Singing” [December 3–9], especially as the issue
of voter fraud is so important to all of us, political affiliations notwithstanding.

In attending the MoveOn party on November 20, I was not acting
as a spokesperson for nor in any way was I there to represent the viewpoints
of Freedom magazine. I have been investigating and freelance-writing
on electronic voting to submit for publication, particularly with Freedom
in mind.

Speaking together at the MoveOn party, Judith Lewis and I seemed
to be in strong agreement on the importance of upholding the U.S. Constitution.
Pursuant to that, regarding our constitutional right to have an accurate vote
and actual verifiable evidence of it, she and I agreed it is not the right thing
for our country to have 40 million of our votes secretly counted by several
large private corporations — with felons in key positions — after those votes
have been cast on their electronic machines that have proven unstable, easily
hackable, and have no verifiable paper receipts. These top corporations happen
to have strong GOP ties and have made large GOP donations, and one, Diebold,
had criminal charges initiated against it by California’s secretary of state
due to its fraudulent actions.

The issue of having a fair and genuine vote is one that has no
political boundaries and, for the sake of our democracy, should be the concern
of politicians and citizens of all parties. Electronic machines are making mistakes
negatively affecting elections and various political parties all over the country.
Criminal individuals do not come from one political affiliation, so the goal
should be to end the possibility for voter fraud in any party.

I very much respect Judith Lewis for her diligence and dedication
to accurate research in the area of election integrity. I also highly respect
activist Bev Harris, who Judith referred to in her article as my patron saint,
because she uncovers, documents and reports specific facts — and lets the facts
speak for themselves while being careful herself not to draw unproven conclusions
from them. Her organization, Black Box Voting, has initiated a huge Freedom
of Information Act request, is conducting forensic investigations, and is taking
legal action on voting irregularities that occurred around the country in this
last election in both Republican and Democratic counties. She says, “Our
members just want clean elections.”

Election tampering needs to be investigated and duly proven through
proper legal channels, as Harris is doing. She says that until the 2004 election
is audited there will be no real answer as to whether there was fraud. She needs
our help, and we need to urge our elected state and federal representatives
of all parties to make sure investigations and proper election reform occur.

Finally, anything I said at the MoveOn party was my own personal
view — not representative of MoveOn. (It was, in fact, the first time I had
met anyone from or had any involvement with MoveOn.) I went to the party hoping
to find -others concerned about fair elections, the problems of electronic voting,
and vote tampering. I was thrilled when voting reform came up overwhelmingly
as the top issue. Overall, I was really impressed and left feeling bolstered
by the fact that I had made contact with such a large group of genuinely concerned
individuals committed to positive change.

—Patti Nicklaus

Los Angeles

Advertising disclosure: We may receive compensation for some of the links in our stories. Thank you for supporting LA Weekly and our advertisers.